marcia wrote:

hoofprints wrote:
Sammybaby wrote:

So what you want is all posts to be 'mainstream' psychology. And these
are not predictable? The mainstream is always being moved and
challenged by anti-mainstream elements. Remember when everyone with
PTSD was given psychotropics or diagnosed as schizophrenic, etc.

TSK,TSK!!
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are DX as schizophrenic.
Not _ALL_ persons dx with PTSD are prescribed psychotropics.

True. But it was a common occurence in the 1960s, 70s and early 80s,
possibly beyond. I was dx'd schizophrenic in 1979 (which I'm not); I
don't believe PTSD was even in DSM-II, which was the version in use at
that time. Didn't PTSD make its first appearance in DSM-III or IIIR?

I don't see it listed in the DSM II that I have. I don't know if it is
a complete version or not, it is in the back of my Behavioral Science
Dictionary.
I think that PTSD has been known about since WWII, but they may have dx
those with PTSD back then as Melancholic, or alcoholic, or whatever.
Then it looks like they further defined it years later. I don't have a
DSM III, but I now it is in my DSM IV.
Defined from the Dictionary of Behavioral Science; 1973; Compiled and

--

Hoof

*Hetero* PRIDE !!
{ Disclaimer: Non Existent words contained within this poast
were created in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.}
{If you have a problem with that,
take it to the Environmentalists Complaint Dept.}
A Free Thinker. © 2003

Socky the Puppet skrev:

There is a difference between anti and alternative.

This is a good point. But the fact is John Jones does present
alternatives, though perhaps not on threads you've encountered.

I also see his posts about pushing on the assumptions we have about
ourselves and what we need that are so prevalent, so assumed in current
psychological circles that the madness inherent in them simply seems
normal. It's our water, we being fish.

Anti is a very valid reaction if this is true.

Abolitionists did not need to have a race relations formula thought out
for the South while they presented their objections to slavery. If
slavery was bad, then simply pointing out absurdities adn the evil of
it was a valid communication role.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly. Or not. Of course, it's your choice.
But simply saying you are anti´mainstream so I'll ignore you as if
that is the rational response doesn't seem rational to me. There would
be no reason to read or respond to mainstream posts either. They are
predictable also.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly.

Sammybaby wrote:

Socky the Puppet skrev:

There is a difference between anti and alternative.

This is a good point. But the fact is John Jones does present
alternatives, though perhaps not on threads you've encountered.

I also see his posts about pushing on the assumptions we have about
ourselves and what we need that are so prevalent, so assumed in current
psychological circles that the madness inherent in them simply seems
normal. It's our water, we being fish.

Anti is a very valid reaction if this is true.

Abolitionists did not need to have a race relations formula thought out
for the South while they presented their objections to slavery. If
slavery was bad, then simply pointing out absurdities adn the evil of
it was a valid communication role.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly. Or not. Of course, it's your choice.
But simply saying you are anti´mainstream so I'll ignore you as if
that is the rational response doesn't seem rational to me. There would
be no reason to read or respond to mainstream posts either. They are
predictable also.

Anti mainstream ?? The new term to throw off the government and stay
off the 'anarchist' _list_.
Could also be known as the trials in the 50's [?] by the government to
expose communists within this country.
I don't recall the name of those trials at this time, but lots of
Hollywood Actors/Actress were hauled into court and accused of being
Communists.

hoofprints wrote:
Sammybaby wrote:

Socky the Puppet skrev:

There is a difference between anti and alternative.

This is a good point. But the fact is John Jones does present
alternatives, though perhaps not on threads you've encountered.

I also see his posts about pushing on the assumptions we have about
ourselves and what we need that are so prevalent, so assumed in current
psychological circles that the madness inherent in them simply seems
normal. It's our water, we being fish.

Anti is a very valid reaction if this is true.

Abolitionists did not need to have a race relations formula thought out
for the South while they presented their objections to slavery. If
slavery was bad, then simply pointing out absurdities adn the evil of
it was a valid communication role.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly. Or not. Of course, it's your choice.
But simply saying you are anti´mainstream so I'll ignore you as if
that is the rational response doesn't seem rational to me. There would
be no reason to read or respond to mainstream posts either. They are
predictable also.

Anti mainstream ?? The new term to throw off the government and stay
off the 'anarchist' _list_.
Could also be known as the trials in the 50's [?] by the government to
expose communists within this country.
I don't recall the name of those trials at this time, but lots of
Hollywood Actors/Actress were hauled into court and accused of being
Communists.

You must be talking about the McCarthy Hearings (House UnAmerican
Activities Committee)... our pre-Bush-era foray into fascism...

marcia wrote:

hoofprints wrote:
Sammybaby wrote:

Socky the Puppet skrev:

There is a difference between anti and alternative.

This is a good point. But the fact is John Jones does present
alternatives, though perhaps not on threads you've encountered.

I also see his posts about pushing on the assumptions we have about
ourselves and what we need that are so prevalent, so assumed in current
psychological circles that the madness inherent in them simply seems
normal. It's our water, we being fish.

Anti is a very valid reaction if this is true.

Abolitionists did not need to have a race relations formula thought out
for the South while they presented their objections to slavery. If
slavery was bad, then simply pointing out absurdities adn the evil of
it was a valid communication role.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly. Or not. Of course, it's your choice.
But simply saying you are anti´mainstream so I'll ignore you as if
that is the rational response doesn't seem rational to me. There would
be no reason to read or respond to mainstream posts either. They are
predictable also.

Anti mainstream ?? The new term to throw off the government and stay
off the 'anarchist' _list_.
Could also be known as the trials in the 50's [?] by the government to
expose communists within this country.
I don't recall the name of those trials at this time, but lots of
Hollywood Actors/Actress were hauled into court and accused of being
Communists.

You must be talking about the McCarthy Hearings (House UnAmerican
Activities Committee)... our pre-Bush-era foray into fascism...


That is the one. What was it's popular name?
I keep thinking it's something like Black Monday.
--

hoofprints wrote:
marcia wrote:

hoofprints wrote:
Sammybaby wrote:

Socky the Puppet skrev:

There is a difference between anti and alternative.

This is a good point. But the fact is John Jones does present
alternatives, though perhaps not on threads you've encountered.

I also see his posts about pushing on the assumptions we have about
ourselves and what we need that are so prevalent, so assumed in current
psychological circles that the madness inherent in them simply seems
normal. It's our water, we being fish.

Anti is a very valid reaction if this is true.

Abolitionists did not need to have a race relations formula thought out
for the South while they presented their objections to slavery. If
slavery was bad, then simply pointing out absurdities adn the evil of
it was a valid communication role.

If JJ is right, then his reactions are valid.
That's the issue. If he is right or not.
Try taking him on directly. Or not. Of course, it's your choice.
But simply saying you are anti´mainstream so I'll ignore you as if
that is the rational response doesn't seem rational to me. There would
be no reason to read or respond to mainstream posts either. They are
predictable also.

Anti mainstream ?? The new term to throw off the government and stay
off the 'anarchist' _list_.
Could also be known as the trials in the 50's [?] by the government to
expose communists within this country.
I don't recall the name of those trials at this time, but lots of
Hollywood Actors/Actress were hauled into court and accused of being
Communists.

You must be talking about the McCarthy Hearings (House UnAmerican
Activities Committee)... our pre-Bush-era foray into fascism...


That is the one. What was it's popular name?
I keep thinking it's something like Black Monday.
--

I could be wrong, but I think Black Monday refers to the stock market
crash of 1929 (also, possibly, the big correction in the 1980s). It
might have been something with the word "red," though (red scare,
maybe?). Unless you're thinking of blacklisting? The only name I can
remember for sure is the McCarthy Hearings... oh, and Arthur Miller's
play The Crucible, which was about McCarthyism, in the guise of the
Salem Witch Trials.

John Jones wrote:

Circumcision is used in place of a human death sacrifice to a god. The
sacrifice is symbolically and experientially like that of being killed
in human sacrifice.

Says who? Here's the Jewish explanation for circumcision, which is
performed in a ritual ceremony known as the Bris (Milah):

Only in your room, I'm sure.

Lived in a few different cultures and grew up amongst many. Obsession
with the penis is not especially a jewish thing. You gave a couple of
examples for why you decided this but they are hardly a case. The
Hindus have many sculptures of large penises seems to put them way
ahead of the Jews. And it could easily be argued that groups that are
more silent about penises have made them a taboo and therefore place
more importance, probably religious, on the thing. I don't feel like
building a case, but as far as I experienced penises, making them
bigger, having big ones, making sure they get hard, making things that
resemble them, denigrating people by denigrating their penises or lack
of them (women), worshipping them (openly or not), having jokes or
sayings or cultural rituals relatign in some ways to penises etc, is
pretty damn universal.

Sammybaby wrote:
Lived in a few different cultures and grew up amongst many. Obsession
with the penis is not especially a jewish thing. You gave a couple of
examples for why you decided this but they are hardly a case. The
Hindus have many sculptures of large penises seems to put them way
ahead of the Jews. And it could easily be argued that groups that are
more silent about penises have made them a taboo and therefore place
more importance, probably religious, on the thing. I don't feel like
building a case, but as far as I experienced penises, making them
bigger, having big ones, making sure they get hard, making things that
resemble them, denigrating people by denigrating their penises or lack
of them (women), worshipping them (openly or not), having jokes or
sayings or cultural rituals relatign in some ways to penises etc, is
pretty damn universal.


Do you know of any Chinese penis jokes, then? All the penis jokes I've
known come from Jews, which is why I asked (and why I cross-posted to
AFHS).

SNIP

And don't think JJ is being facetious, just because the nonsense he
spews is so ridiculous. He's one of the most literal-minded people
posting here. If he says babies don't feel pain, it's because he has a
head full of crisps. Every parent knows better.

Everybody on Earth has an obsession with penis. Men like the way it feels
when they stick in in somebody and women like the way it feels when somebody
sticks one in them. Men spend a lot of time wondering how and when they are
going to "get it off" the next time, even if it's by their own hand. From
stories we hear of Alien abductions, it seems that Gray Aliens are also
obsessed by fucking and reproducing with us. It seems to be a universal
thing.

Do you know why they don't circumcise Chinese men?
Because they end up with a 2" scar on their ass.

Do you know why they don't circumcise Chinese men?
Because they end up with a 2" scar on their ass.

"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169068883.461738.55380@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Sammybaby wrote:
Lived in a few different cultures and grew up amongst many. Obsession
with the penis is not especially a jewish thing. You gave a couple of
examples for why you decided this but they are hardly a case. The
Hindus have many sculptures of large penises seems to put them way
ahead of the Jews. And it could easily be argued that groups that are
more silent about penises have made them a taboo and therefore place
more importance, probably religious, on the thing. I don't feel like
building a case, but as far as I experienced penises, making them
bigger, having big ones, making sure they get hard, making things that
resemble them, denigrating people by denigrating their penises or lack
of them (women), worshipping them (openly or not), having jokes or
sayings or cultural rituals relatign in some ways to penises etc, is
pretty damn universal.


Do you know of any Chinese penis jokes, then? All the penis jokes I've
known come from Jews, which is why I asked (and why I cross-posted to
AFHS).